DeBlasio: "We're no giving you more money." Cuomo: "Yes you are..."

[RailRunRob]

 

22 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I already explained why earlier. The City WAS in complete control and couldn't run the subways because it went bankrupt.  It ceded control to the State and it's been that way ever since.  It's easy to say that City can do it again now because of the good financial times, but it wasn't that long ago that City was struggling and had to make cuts to various city services.  

The City currently runs several large agencies quite poorly, with ongoing spikes in costs, mismanagement and lies. I'm no lover of the State, but one has to be quite gullible to believe that the City could run the  so much better.

I'm well aware of the history behind the MTA.. My 8-year-old could google this information. I hear your Concerns with mismanagement what I'm saying is what we have right now is two people that don't want to take ownership. The City is more prosperous than it's ever been it's 409-year existence. I would much rather have one person in charge that I could hold accountable and back into a wall.. If that's the Mayor then so be it.. This Relationship between the State and the City isn't really working it's confusing and counterproductive. Who get's the tab and the say.. I know I'm not putting any money out if I don't have a proper seat at the table. The City should have power over its lifeline, it's lifeblood. The State has NYC in the choke hold it's about power...You think it's a good idea to have folks upstate vote on funding for your transport? When New York City is carrying the State Country To a larger degree. Beside Manufacturing upstate what else is really going on?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 minute ago, RailRunRob said:

 

I'm well aware of the history behind the MTA.. My 8-year-old could google this information. I hear your Concerns with mismanagement what I'm saying is what we have right now is two people that don't want to take ownership. The City is more prosperous than it's ever been it's 409-year existence. I would much rather have one person in charge that I could hold accountable and back into a wall.. If that's the Mayor then so be it.. This Relationship between the state and the city isn't really working it's confusing and counterproductive. Who get's the tab and the say.. I know I'm not putting any money out if I don't have a proper seat at the table. The City should have power over its lifeline, it's lifeblood. The State has NYC in the choke hold it's about power...You think it's a good idea to have folks upstate vote funding for your transport? When New York City is carrying the State Country To a larger degree. Beside Manufacturing upstate what else is really going on?

I don't at all, but at the same time, it's the City that couldn't effectively run the subways previously when it had control, and they haven't in how many decades? I would rather have a set up like Deucey described above.  De Blasio has spent money like it is no tomorrow and we have very little to show for it.  

[RailRunRob]

6 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I don't at all, but at the same time, it's the City that couldn't effectively run the subways previously when it had control, and they haven't in how many decades? I would rather have a set up like Deucey described above.  De Blasio has spent money like it is no tomorrow and we have very little to show for it.  

Can't say I'm huge a De Blasio fan so I understand that point. But something like that could work. Great point @Deucey

[Deucey]

47 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I think you'd have to do something like that because otherwise we'd have more of the same BS, just with de Blasio appointing people he knows, giving them bloated salaries and raises for doing nothing and then defending them when they've been shown not to do their job effectively.

The surprising thing to me is that it’s not that way already. I figured after Tammany Hall and Robert Moses et al, that NYers would’ve reformed things to avoid unelected folks controlling government agencies. Imagine my surprise when I started learning how NYS government works...

[bobtehpanda]

4 hours ago, Deucey said:

The surprising thing to me is that it’s not that way already. I figured after Tammany Hall and Robert Moses et al, that NYers would’ve reformed things to avoid unelected folks controlling government agencies. Imagine my surprise when I started learning how NYS government works...

We attempted to install a civil service where you couldn't sack people based on political affiliation and we tried putting in a rule for everything that had been tried.

Turned out all that did was remove the incentive for people to do their jobs effectively and make it basically impossible for normal companies to comply.

[bobtehpanda]

5 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

If we really think the City can run the  just look at the mess with NYCHA with the mayor still backing the chair after she lied under oath to the City Council about mismanagement, monies spent with nothing to show for it and so on.  Cuomo is no saint by any means, but the City does its own wasting of money as well regularly. In other words, I don't trust de Blasio to do such a stellar job.

The main problem with the previous NYCBOT setup, and the current MTA setup, is that there was one elected source of responsibility. A district with a board of elected officials would solve that issue.

[Deucey]

8 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

The main problem with the previous NYCBOT setup, and the current MTA setup, is that there was one elected source of responsibility. A district with a board of elected officials would solve that issue.

That’s my point. The only things I see that could (be) cause(ing) reluctance to actually do that are:

• the state ceding control of a revenue generator (TBTA)

• concern that it would be unconstitutional like the Board of Estimate was since giving Westchester, Rockland, Nassau and Suffolk seats along with the Borough Presidents dilutes Brooklyn’s representation.

To that I say separate NYCTA from  and let the rump  keep the railroads and bridges.

[bobtehpanda]

1 minute ago, Deucey said:

That’s my point. The only things I see that could (be) cause(ing) reluctance to actually do that are:

• the state ceding control of a revenue generator (TBTA)

• concern that it would be unconstitutional like the Board of Estimate was since giving Westchester, Rockland, Nassau and Suffolk seats along with the Borough Presidents dilutes Brooklyn’s representation.

To that I say separate NYCTA from  and let the rump  keep the railroads and bridges.

Agreed, with the caveat that MTA keeps jurisdiction only on the outer borough bridges that cross boroughs (so the Triboro, Whitestone, Throgs Neck, and VZ.

The city should have a free hand with the Manhattan crossings.

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

Agreed, with the caveat that MTA keeps jurisdiction only on the outer borough bridges that cross boroughs (so the Triboro, Whitestone, Throgs Neck, and VZ.

The city should have a free hand with the Manhattan crossings.

So only the bridges TBTA owned. Status Quo Ante 1968.

[Trainmaster5]

IIRC the only moneymaker was the TBTA when the spread it's tentacles. The city couldn't afford the NYCTA as far as maintaining and upgrading went. Even before the famous " Ford to NYC drop dead" headline. The LIRR had been bankrupt for 20 years or so and the demise of Penn Central led to the creation of MNRR and the contract to run the New Haven Line for Connecticut. That might not be the exact timeline but that's what tied the State, City, and outlying counties together. The motorists, through tolls, made it worthwhile for the bondholders to okay this shotgun marriage. Bondholders. The TBTA was a moneymaker. So was the PANY&NJ. I remember walking around New Lots and Lenox yards in the '80's and those R62A cars had plates affixed saying they were purchased by the Port Authority and leased to NYCTA. Bondholders. Marriage arranged by Governor Nelson Rockefeller and the head of Chase Manhattan Bank David Rockefeller. When you lose your "virginity" you can't get it back. If the city takes back NYCTA they probably have to pay the Bondholders. Just my take. Carry on.

[Wallyhorse]

9 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Why? Because the City went bankrupt years ago and couldn't run the subways because it couldn't afford to, so the State took over, that's why.  lol People have very limited memories here.  The City is doing well financially now, but it has gone through ups and downs. All it takes is Wall Street tanking and tourism not doing so well, and the City isn't looking oh so pretty and so flush with cash. They'd go crying to the State again to rescue it, so if the City can handle its own business then it should take control and do what it needs to do.

That is true.  A lot of that can be tied to the twin recessions of 1969-'75 that led to NYC going bankrupt.  Those recessions did a lot with why NYC went bankrupt, 

[bobtehpanda]

3 hours ago, Deucey said:

So only the bridges TBTA owned. Status Quo Ante 1968.

IIRC, QMT and Brooklyn Battery were also TBTA. So not really.

Also, the State giving up its right to dictate tolls on City-owned bridges.